[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 6/13/03
Time: 5:02:42 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote:
"John,
"This is true.[I am uncertain what JG is referring to here -- JJ] I have a pair of uncomfortable dress loafers that I wear only for events of short duration. They are too big for me and I feel as though I am going to walk out of them every time I take a step.
"However, if you have two murder suspects – one who did wear a size that was identical in length to the killer’s shoeprints and who would have had to wear an uncomfortable shoe, which one would you say is most likely to have left the shoeprints?..."
The one that wanted to plant the prints of a shoe owned by the man he wanted to frame.
"... Factor in the disappearance of the killer’s shoes, the fact that the man who would have had to wear uncomfortable shoes had his quarters thoroughly searched..."
Depends on what you mean by 'thoroughly'. Fuhrman did, in fact, do a cursory search of Kaelin's room, and reported (in 'Murder in Brentwood') that he looked at the soles of Kaelin's shoes. This would have been a rather curious exercise if, as you maintain, Fuhrman was the true killer and thus knew he would NOT find the murderer's shoes in Kaelin's room. I don't recall if Arnelle's and Kaelin's rooms were searched along with the main house. However, since Kaelin's whereabouts are totally undocumented from around 1:30 am, when he hung up on Ferrara for the last time, and about 5:30 a.m., when the four detectives showed up at his door, the disapparance of the shoes, knife, and seat suit is no particular problem. Kaelin could have driven to Santa Barbara and back in the time allowed.
"... and the only comment that anyone made about his shoes was that they were too small. Who would you go with?
"We’re not talking absolutes, here,..."
Huh? We are talking about murder, and the foreiture of the life or lifetime freedom of a person; how much more 'absolute' can you get?
"..just probabilities...."
As in preponderance of evidence, as in the quality of evidence allowed in a civil trial. That quality of evidence could lead to the destruction of an innocent man, as it did in OJ's case."
"... What does Occam’s Razor tell you? --Jasper "
Well, among other things, Jasper, it tell me that when fced with a theory of a crime that has five people acting in a conspiracy, and a theory of a crime which has one man acting alone, the one-man theory is by far the simpler, and therefore the correct choice.
So, how about them apples, Garrison?